tv Washington Journal Erik Prince Discusses Afghanistan War Strategy CSPAN August 11, 2017 5:36pm-6:26pm EDT
roots nation conference. warren willabeth speak at the conference. later at 4:30 p.m., former vice president al gore and pamela chamba. join us for live coverage on c-span. >> erik prince, the founder of black water usa talks about privatizing the war in afghanistan. onwas our guest this morning washington journal. we spoke to him for about 45 minutes. >> we want to welcome to the table eric rentz, the founder of blackwater, usa and now the chairman of front your service group. that friday morning, thanks for being with us. let's get right to it. today, youl on usa wrote the following. growthsident can reach
-- restructure the war by aligning u.s. efforts under a presidential envoy, all decisions become laser focused on creating a stable, tof-supporting afghanistan give our troops and exit ramp. outline specifically what you want to do. >> the president can pull everything out completely, which i think would be a bad idea. i think the taliban and isis would in up taking over the country and would be a rallying cry for every terrorist around the world, or we can keep doing much of the same that we have aen, we've spent almost trillion dollars, now spending more than the entire defense budget of the u.k., justin afghanistan. more than 2000 americans dead, 20,000 plus wounded. health care calls from that war will be a trillion dollars on top of it.
and as secretary mattis said, we are not winning. the terrorist forces control almost half the country as it is now. clearly the current strategy is not working. >> a try to take a step back and reason -- the reason is to say let's haraway the incremental decisions we've had. we've had 17 different commanders in 16 years. there has not been a unity of command. you have to have one leader that's in charge of all things from the department of defense, state, intelligence community, for afghanistan and pakistan. you have to have one person that makes decisions forward. second, to really support the afghan security or's is in a about 9000 there's u.s. troops in country right now and 26ther 4000 in nato thousand contractors. i'm not even arguing for , andsion of contractors
eventually we would provide the offramp for u.s. troops. left, right, or center, let's figure out how to be done in afghanistan. this is an approach that will get there and cost less than 1/5 of what were spending now. it would return $40 billion back to the treasury. >> can you compare this to anything else in our history? have we are other countries try this be? >> this is not unleashing private armies in any way. all this is doing is largely what the u.s. special or's is have done in afghanistan, helping afghan special forces fight and function effectively. they have been trained and meant toward in the way i am recommending, where u.s. special forces operate alongside them. they live, train, and patrol together. the rest of the afghan army has not been done that way.
maybe once or twice a week. all i am talking about doing is putting contract trainers on a long-term basis that live, train, and patrol with those afghani's and provide a structural support that provides them toe to each of depend on. analogies from history, the flying tigers, there was a time when the united states needed to help china defend itself from japanese aggression because they were bombing their cities. in that case you had americans as contractors went and fought and basically became part of the chinese air force in 1940. certainly the first foreign policy crisis america faced were the barbary tyrants. a marines in about 90
contracted professionals. liberating the 340 american sailors that were held hostage in 1805. there are plenty of examples throughout history and a lot of them are still classified because there are is more of this that has happen and people want to imagine. >> our guest is american -- our guess is eric prince. >> will get to your calls and comments in just a moment. you into afghanistan as a navy seal and with like water countless times. had we get to this current situation, why the stalemate? ask the taliban was decimated in . matter of the taliban are not 10 feet tall.
and were truly decimated brushed back. the more we've turned it into a conventional army operation, we have gone backwards. now we are at the point where the taliban, having survived this for 15 or 16 years, they are at their best. those survivors knew exactly how collectsoperates and signals intelligence and surveillance and targets and all the rest. military infinest the world, if they could just get the enemy to fight them the way they want to fight. that's the problem. fighting against guys in pickup trucks and flip lops is a different war and we've never truly adapted to fighting that kind of war with the military that was largely built to defend western europe and the soviet union. >> president saying he's decisionto announce a soon. what if we pulled out completely, then what? >> it's harder to define, but i can take what losing looks like.
if the u.s. pullback all support for the afghan government, the taliban and isis type forces would end up taking over the country. they already dominate all caps a country as it is now. mccain wants to see an additional 4000 troops and he wants to do what the u.s. did in iraq to afghanistan. guest: it is more of the same. we have had as many as 140,000 troops in the country, 100,000 americans and 40,000 nato, that did not work, they can push and, as the taliban says, americans have the watches but we have the time. you have to do a sustainable, cheap, long-term strategy that helps keep unrelenting pressure on the terrorist elements. the u.s. proclivity to want to surge, go in there and rush and chase after them, that is a false presumption because the enemy ducks and covers. they have the time.
host: the founder of whitewater -- of like water and now front tier service works, would your organization's benefit? guest: we would have a go at it as a bid. i was asked by people at the white house after i wrote an opinion to elaborate on the op-ed and make a detailed analysis of what the budget would take because they wanted a comparison. i can clearly say that this program would cost less than 20% versus what the pentagon is spending now. i know what the numbers are and what this should cost. host: usa today say we spent $50 billion a year, does that sound right? guest: yes, my plan would cost them billions and include existing spending they are doing on the afghanistan secret forces budget, remaining there to keep
active-duty soft guys. this contracted piece would provide mentors, at the battalion level, across the afghan army for the long-term. air and governance support to make sure the afghan military guess the logistics support they need, food, fuel, parts, ammunition, they get those things on time and the medical support, and tactical intelligence. i believe that is all you need to do to keep the afghan forces upright. beyond that, we are wasting money. host: what is your view of general nicholson, the commander in afghanistan? guest: he has been dealt a tough hand to play. because being the 17th commander in 16 years, living with other people's incremental decisions and no one has been in charge for a long time. i had the advantage of coming with a clean sheet of paper and saying, this is what needs to happen to make this work. if the u.s. army could suddenly
send a brigade of sergeants, senior sergeants and staff officers to be the embedded mentor these, i would shut up. but they cannot, they have not organized that way in 16 years, they did that in vietnam or the -- the vietnam war where they embedded mentors into the vietnamese battalions and operated with them but the u.s. army is not big enough to do that, they can distribute of sergeants a way to do that but would render a third of the army combat inoperable. host: having served in the military, whether i rock, -- iraq afghanistan, north , korea, is the military prepared for 21st century warfare? guest: again, we have amazing conventional capabilities. look at the last two wars, largely insurgencies, the conventional part of the iraq war was quite small, short. it evolved into an insurgency
and an afghanistan has been an insurgency almost the entire time. getting a military in the paradigm, and the mindset to do both is very hard. coming at this, i like the idea of contractors doing this. these are veterans that have already served in the u.s. military and serve them well going back and doing it again. deploying in a different model but the same skill sets and same people. where a country of great innovation and flexibility at figuring out ways to solve problems after 16 years, why not consider what has worked in the past. said, here someone is a crazy idea loading around, outlandish, even by today's outlandish standards, the u.s. should hire a mercenary army to fix afghanistan. guest: he is wrong on a couple of points. the way these mentors would work as they would be adjunct, attached to the afghan army which by the united nations
definition does not make them mercenaries. they are not mercenaries and not a private army operating in afghanistan, the are under the afghanistan chain of command and accountable under the ucmj and there to support the afghan military, what the u.s. army should be doing but for the last 16 years have yet organized that way. host: our guest is erik prince. nancy, democrat line, new hampshire. caller: thank you for taking my call. as an older person, i am much older than erik prince, i am curious, you do not seem to operate under any laws. part of the afghan military, there was no central military or government in afghanistan before, there was always tribes. you are men were arrested for open fire in the square in iraq when civilians were killed.
how did you get access to all of our treasury money to build your own mercenary army in afghanistan? i am appalled we would consider hiring mercenaries on behalf of the american government. we will never be done with terrorists as long as you continue to occupy afghanistan. it is unbelievable, 16 years later that we are pouring all this money in dick cheney lied through his teeth and you are a good friend of his. how did you get money from the treasury? guest: let me clarify a couple of things. we are not doing that work now. the u.s. military is doing it and have been doing it for 16 years. it is costing the taxpayers more than $50 billion per year. there is an afghan government, one we recognize. largely been elected and is representative. we could either choose to pull out completely, and i believe the afghan government would be defeated and it would collapse
and it would be another completely failed state. harboring a lot of terrorists. or we can keep doing the same thing. i do not think we should do that. this is an off-road to end the war and to bring the troops home and be done. host: chris in wisconsin, republican line. with erik prince. caller: good morning. i am conflicting the story about $1 trillion. from the facts i have gained, it is $6 trillion. i have three points. that's the first point. my other point, korea, that is a
scary situation. i think that we need to -- i do not know exactly what to say about that. other than, we cannot let them loose. the third point is that iran, syria, lebanon, israel, all of those factors are -- is trouble. guest: look, i agree, the united states has spent an enormous amount of money in iraq, afghanistan, and i want u.s. to stop spending the money and i would like to cauterize the unending, bleeding wound in afghanistan, americans were killed last week, two kids in their 20's driving back from a meeting with a provincial governor were blown up on the way back to the base and the taliban will continue to do that and they know how to fight the united states. they know how to cut and cut.
the united states is largely on the defense in afghanistan and in this time to bring that to an end on not giving the terrorists sanctuary. on the issue of $1 trillion versus $6 trillion, i said $1 trillion in health care costs, i do not disagree that we have spent more than $6 trillion. host: alexandria, louisiana, independent line. >> i would like to ask mr. prince if he is going to be responsible for the hospital bills on his people because, in iraq, they ended up on social security because the corporations, as soon as they got back to the states and were injured, they were fired and ended up on social security. they had several programs showing this on c-span. guest: any contractor that goes abroad on behalf of the u.s. government should have what is called defense base act insurance which is a long time disability insurance in case
they are injured or there is a deathbed -- death benefit annuity for any surviving family members. if there are cases like that, those are an anomaly and that was not the case with any of our former employees. host: who is funding the taliban? >> it is largely self funding. they make money off gold, marble, opium, we have been there for 16 euros and there is not a mining law or energy law, they know how to make money, taxing the areas producing the resources and keeping a huge chunk of the money. ers cannot do it because there is no law. some support from pakistan. between waste from the u.s. military, graft and corruption from the afghan government, and the trading in the commodities, the taliban is well-funded.
host: when you talk to the afghan people, what do they tell you? guest: they are most concerned about being abandoned as they know what the consequences would be if the u.s. pulled out. the afghan government had a bad week last week and lost an entire company to a taliban ground attack. barely 20 guys escaped. where is the air support? where is the reaction forces and help from the united states or other afghan forces? as they lay out this plan with embedded structure of the battalion level with air support and medical support, those problems go away. they realize that and appreciate that. host: if your company, a hypothetical, got involved and your sister is betsy devos, any conflict of interest with your sister in the cabinet? guest: not at all, the educational department is separate. host: fairfax, virginia, democrat line.
caller: are you considered -- considering asked her your sister's husband about him funding the private military. to what address should i send my tax money because he wants to privatize everything in the government? everybody is up in arms about having to pay for health care, the government is mandating them to buy something they do not want. i do not want to send my money to erik prince or anyone like him but i will not begin in the choice, how much money will you make -- be given the choice. how much money will you make? guest: the focus is ending the war in afghanistan one not -- while denying the taliban sanctuary. it cannot be done for one dollar, we are spending $52 billion next year, $1 billion a week, let's bring that to a close and return
40 plus billion dollars to the treasury. host: with regard to the warfare in the 21st century, is the military nimble enough, is it getting the right training to do things they need to have done? guest: when the taliban are on the best of their game, they have been at this for 16 years and have continuity in theater, the problem in the way the u.s. military deploys is they send guys for six months, nine months , they deployed and leave and the local area and knowledge and experience leaves with them and they do not come back to the same area. we have been fighting the same war 16 times. or even more than that. that is a flaw in how the u.s. deploys. in any large bureaucracy is not nimble. a huge advantage to come this from a clean sheet of paper. and do what is needed to accomplish the task.
versus trying to build a building with a unwieldy set of tools. host: a couple of calls on blackwater, what is the status on that company? guest: i sold it in 2010 and it is run by a couple of -- it is owned by a big new york hedge fund and they continue to do security and bodyguard support through the u.s. government, i am not involved. host: what is the service frontier group? >> it is a logistics company, we do most of our business in africa and the transportation of groceries and goods from cape town to the drc. with aviation support out of kenya and malta. a lot of medevac and cargo movements by air. >> john in falls church, virginia, independent line. caller: we have been at this for a long time with very little effect.
you bring rational thought to an emotional conversation which is hard to win. we need to try something else. it is time and i appreciate everything you are doing. i see a lot of opportunities to bring in new technology and a new way of fighting. that the services have not been able to do. guest: the taliban were defeated the first time around by 100 cia officers and if you hundred soft guys backed by air power. going back to the relentless pressure on the taliban and other terror offshoots in afghanistan, it does not have to be so hard and costs so much. let's figure out how to stop this war. host: we were in touch with the u.s. ambassador to afghanistan in he said the afghan government does not comment on internal deliberations of other government and we are reserving judgment until a formal policy
is announced. awaiting a decision by the president, have you talked to general mattis, general kelly, others about your plan? guest: i talked to general mattis, i have not talked to general kelly. general mattis said that my analysis of the root problems were the best he has seen. he may not agree with my policy recommendations, meaning putting contracted guys into the roles. he said the root problem, meaning sustain the battalions from the bottom up with long-term mentors, i think that is the right approach and he would agree. host: if your plan was implemented, how long would it take to succeed? >> it would take about a year to fully ramp up, getting people into all of the positions, 100 different battalions across afghanistan. you would see significant
changes on the ground within months because the afghan battalions functioning much better that have reliable air support will put more pressure on the taliban. what soldier in afghanistan, what afghan soldier wants to leave his base knowing that he has almost no chance of any reaction force support him if they get in a big firefight? if he gets wounded, he can die of an infection after 10 days because he did not get antibiotics and is assured that he will get no air support if they get into a fight. what afghan soldier is confident going into a fight? host: how big is afghanistan? comparable to a state in the u.s., and how many people live re?i guest: bigger than texas and 30 million people live there. host: we go to texas. caller: my question is for mr. prince. these private military companies, we are seeing an
increase in insurgencies, in afghanistan -- [indiscernible] in your opinion, how can corporations such as blackwater entered these regions? what sort of oversight and regulation would need to be in place? guest: you are right, a lot of insurgencies, more places on fire on earth than in probably 50, 60 years. with them exporting terrorism and pushing migration.
for the maintenance logistics support, give them more enablers to get that job done. anytime a u.s. company does that, it's regulated by the state department and controlled thethose rules are based on original arms export laws for preventing the sale of sensitive missile or weapons technology. those could use some updating to make those more relevant, to make the united states a more helpful platform for helping these countries that are suffering from these insurgencies. >> our conversation with eric prince, in his piece earlier this week, it's available online at usa today.. nancy is joining us from oregon. xo was wondering what would be so catastrophic out of just
leaving afghanistan. the russians did, they had their bellyful of it. we didn't win in iraq, didn't win in afghanistan, we didn't win it bit now. rulers,re different different ways of living than ours, but we got. why can't we leave, if the russians couldn't do it, what makes you think we can do it? q, nancy. -- host: thank you, nancy. guest: the russians, in the 1980's, had put in $1 billion of u.s. legal aid per year that drove the soviets out of afghanistan to include providing the afghans with surface-to-air missiles. fortunately, no one has done that to the u.s. effort in afghanistan. we are not there to colonize it. were not there to dominate it. the u.s. went there to prevent it from ever being used as a base of operations to launch a terrorist attack against the
homeland after 9/11. there is an argument to be made to pull out completely. but doing that in this era of isis and lots of lone wolf, individual type attacks, it serves as a caliphate, a base for radical islam to rally around. as you go through the process of trying to defeat isis on the ground, in iraq, and syria, and suddenly afghanistan falls, which it would if the u.s. pulled out completely, you have another base of operations for an isis-like force. that is what we are trying to avoid. i try to provide a cheap and sustainable option between pulling out completely but continuing the same level of heavy spending we are doing. this plan costs less than 20% of the current plan. host: as you have indicated, there are a lot of systems in afghanistan that contribute to the problem, correct?
guest: sure. there are certain things, structurally, that need to be addressed, like the mining law, the energy law. there are $1 trillion of -- that the afghan government should be benefiting from. it is a diplomatic failure on the u.s.'s part to push those laws and bring about a turn in the economy. host: let's quickly turns or north korea. this is what the president said in new jersey. [video clip] >> for people who was questioning that statement, maybe it was not tough enough. host: and this morning -- "military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should north korea act unwisely. hopefully, kim jong-un will find another path." that from the president this morning.
guest: remember, kim jong-un killed his half-brother in an international airport. he strapped his uncle to the end of a military gun and blew him away. he is not a rational guy. those comments are not directed at kim jong-un, they are designed to go to the people around kim jong-un, so that they realize if you do something stupid, it is not just him who will go, it is all the leadership clique. every time kim fires a missile, it is a marketing project. certainly a threat to the west. his nuclear missile program is iran's nuclear missile program. the question of them selling weapons is a strategic problem to the u.s. the more of those nations have
those weapons, it will be our problem. host: can diplomacy work or is conflict and war inevitable? guest: i hope conflict is avoided. if i were the united states, i would try a program like the united states did for the soviet union in the 1980's. the wall came down, the berlin wall, because people on the east side of the wall figured out what was on the west side of the wall. really putting an information program together in north korea would make it harder for kim to govern. host: but china does not want that, they do not want to see a unified korea. guest: they might not, but anything that makes kim's life more miserable in governing troublesome is ideal.
anything that removes kim from rule and -- it is probably time to end the kim dynasty. host: and the question everyone seems to be asking -- are you worried, are you concerned? how do you answer that, you personally? guest: if i lived in the first 20 miles next to the dmz, that is the most worrisome spot. the fact is kim, every time he tests -- and he is testing out submarines -- and him shooting into south korea or japan or guam -- 400,000 american citizens there -- that is a problem. so spending on missile defense technology and deterrence, this is an example of why -- before we worry about another war in
north korea, let's finish the one we have been in the longest. host: let's turn back to afghanistan and the treatment by the chair of that senate armed forces committee, senator john mccain -- we must face stocks -- face facts that we are losing in afghanistan. time is of the essence if we intend to turn the tide. the goal of the strategy is to ensure afghanistan never again becomes a sanctuary for terrorists to plot and conduct attacks against america or our allies. we need an approach to bolster efforts, the strength and capability of the afghan government and security forces, and intensify diplomatic efforts to facilitate a negotiated peace process in afghanistan. guest: you could've said that in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, or now. the difference is -- we need to have one person in charge of all u.s. policy for afghanistan.
put one person in charge and make them responsible for it. we have not had that. it would be interesting to see senator mccain's response if the president names that person, and senator mccain would expect to have oversight over that guy. treat this like a bankruptcy. this has been going around in circles for 16 years. if you put a business in bankruptcy, you have a court appoint a bankruptcy trustee. that is kind of what we need in the afghanistan effort. do what we need to do to deny terrorists sanctuary, stabilize the afghan government, and figure out how to leave. that is america's goal. host: joe is next, south carolina. caller: good morning. let me give you a little background. i used to work for the federal government and the dod. i was involved in logistics and
helped out the portable units they used to take over to the sands. i retired in 2007. anyway, you are familiar with the a-76 circular, as a contractor. i have always that the military should be an inherently government function. let me explain something -- the government is not supposed to compete with the private sector if the private sector can do a job more efficiently and effectively. erik knows that. he is a millionaire. aside from the money thing and tactics and strategy, i would like to go back to a hearing in the senate armed services committee -- thank goodness for c-span that we can watch those things. general nicholson testified in
february. my senator, lindsey graham, question him in detail about what was needed to win in afghanistan. he said at least 30,000 more troops. he also said that contractors outnumber government guys two to one over there. i don't know if that was true. he expressed dismay that russia is trying to undermine our efforts over there. he also said if we do not win this thing over there and get that place stabilized, we will feel their presence on this continent -- host: we will have to end there and give our guest chance to respond. guest: let me answer last to first. you are right. there are more contractors in afghanistan already. 26,000. nine and a half thousand of those are americans in afghanistan. there are another 9000 u.s. troops. there are a lot of contractors there. the plan i am advocating severely reduces all of those numbers. the question of inherently
governmental comes up. i was born in the summer of 1969, the summer of woodstock and apollo 11. if you were to say is it inherently governmental that only the u.s. government can put a rocket into space, 1969, of course, you would have said yes. but now today, 2017, the only way the u.s. government gets to space is on a private contractor's rocket or with the russian space program. the idea of what is inherently governmental, time and technology changes that. host: will from ohio, good morning. caller: the first thing i would like to say is this whole thing is ridiculous. the russians warned us 15 years ago, do not go into afghanistan, you will not win. they were right. the second thing i would like to say is we are spending all of
this money between afghanistan and iraq. you can rebuild every hospital and school in america with the money we are spending over there. this could be putting americans to work, it would be creating jobs, and you would have money to support the entitlement program we need for people. this whole thing is just ridiculous. guest: i think the president agrees with you. he has said repeatedly he is not comfortable with the same big military, big spending approach in afghanistan. i think he wrestles with pulling out completely and putting that money to work back in the united states and infrastructure versus spending it. i try to provide him an option to keep pressure on the terrorists and still return more than $40 billion back to the budget to spend in america. host: from georgia, rick. caller: good morning.
thank you, c-span, for your service to our nation. i have a couple of comments. first, as far as a grand war in afghanistan, history teaches us that the last foreign general to have won a war in afghanistan was alexander the great, about 300 bc. secondly, privatization from the military is a terrible idea. all the way back to the history, mercenaries have always been a failure. mercenaries cannot be trusted. mercenaries are there for the profit. their allegiance is to money, not to a nation. i think you have revealed your motives, when you try to compare afghanistan to a business. war is not a place to realize a profit.
the analogy with a business in bankruptcy is not well taken. thank you. guest: i would say the effort is in bankruptcy. the fact that the afghan state is 90% plus dependent on donor funds to operate, and that even our secretary of defense acknowledges we are not winning, having spent close to $1 trillion, any rational observer or investor could characterize that as being in bankruptcy. again, trying to save a lot of money and putting this thing, trying to find an offramp for the longest war in history, is important. as to the idea of mercenaries, or contractors, i respectfully strongly disagree with you. anyone who looks at the history of the flying tigers, what they accomplished against the
japanese, even winston churchill praised those guys, those contractors, those former army, navy, air force pilots who went to work for a chinese company to defend china against japanese aggression. churchill equated those pilots to the same work the raf did in britain. caller: i think you're trying to push innovative solutions, which is excellent. but a couple of points. one of the things i would say is have you heard of soap ways airlines and the arming of some arsenal in bulgaria to boko haram, isis, and other areas this one has been conducting. all of the manifests with airplanes are available on crowdsourcethetruth.org. would make sense to me to cut out those lines going to the
spiders fighting against our troops. host: are you familiar with this? guest: is there leakage in arms trade in the world? yes, sadly. that is not necessary in afghanistan, because when the taliban can roll over an afghan base and destroy it and capture all of the arms provided by the u.s., they do not need it. host: this in the headlines -- the blackwater ceo held a secret seychelle meeting to establish a back line between trump and russia. is the headline accurate? guest: i was in a business meeting when i was in the seychelles that had nothing to do with the u.s. government really. host: you have not been contacted by anyone investigating this? guest: not at all. host: what do you think of
trump? guest: i feel for the guy, as much negativity is attacking him. he was a multibillionaire, living a comfortable life. but he cares about his country and decided to step up and do something about it. i think the guy could cure cancer, and the left would still criticize him for curing cancer, somehow. he is in a thankless position. and not hillary clinton. as the administration comes together, there will be good things ahead. host: is his rhetoric appropriate? guest: rhetoric, particularly at kim jong-un -- like i said, i think that was directed at the circle around kim jong-un. having clear definition from the united states about what the consequences are of firing missiles at guam is appropriate. host: last call from new york, rich. thank you for waiting.
caller: i would like to say it is not terrorists who scare me, it is you. you are nothing more than a warmonger. i am sure there is a special place in hell for you. guest: i am sorry you feel that way. i am trying to figure out how to end the war in afghanistan and bring the troops home. i question how you would do that. host: let's go back to our earlier point. is "privatize" the right word? guest: first of all, let's end the war. everyone left of center wants the figure how to bring the troops home. you have to have some sort of structure in place to have afghan security forces are bright and effective. this is the model to do that. people want to complain about contractors in afghanistan -- there are already 26,000 there. this plan reduces that number 80%. i will take criticism.
people have criticism to throw around. the fact is, these are difficult problems, and for the united states to pull out of afghanistan completely and leave a terrorist safe haven is a problem. a solution to that, people can criticize me for that, but if you're not over the target, you're not taking flak. host: if people can follow you on twitter or on the web? guest: i am not on either. host: but your website? guest: sure, but it has nothing to do with solving afghanistan. host: erik prince, thank you. >> every week in the clinton white house, there was some thing gate. it was a very tense environment. we had us national prosecutor, a guy named ken starr.
he was like the boogie man back then. i spent more time in that one requestssponding to than doing anything else. remember going through every document, trying to find that thing that ken starr wanted that week. now, i actually get to do my job every >> watch our interview with omarosa manigault. tonight on c-span, c-span radio, .nd www.c-span.org as president trump continued his working vacation in bedminster, new jersey today, he responded to her reporter's question about north korea. by militaryou mean solutions related to north korea?
president trump: we are looking at that very carefully and i hope they're going to fully understand the gravity of what i said. and what i said is what i mean. hopefully they will understand the meaning of what i said, the meaning of those words. those words are very easy to understand. we don't want to talk about that channels. we want to talk about a country that has misbehaved for many, many years, decades, actually, through numerous administrations and they didn't want to take on the issue and i have no choice but to take it on, and i'm taking it on. we will either be very successful quickly or we will be very successful in a different way quickly. [indiscernible] why is she wrong? i think she'sp: eking for germany.
she is a friend of mine, a very good woman. perhaps she is referring to germany. she is certainly not referring to the united states, that i can tell you. critics are only saying that because it is me. if somebody else uttered exact same words that i uttered, they'd say what a great, wonderful statement. you, we havell tens of millions of people in this country that are so happy with what i am saying. they are saying finally we have a president that is eking up for our nation, and frankly, sticking up for our friends and allies. this man will not get away with what he is doing, believe me. threat in thene form of an overt threat, which by the way, he has been uttering for years, and his family has been uttering for years, or if he does anything with tech to -- or anyplace to guam
else that is an american territory or ally, he will truly regret it, and he will regret it fast. thank you all very much. thank you very much. >> after spending the weekend his golf club in new jersey, president trump will be heading to trump tower in manhattan on sunday where he has two days of meetings scheduled. the president will interrupt his day there to return briefly to washington on monday with reports that he will be holding a press conference. the white house has been undergoing renovations in the president's absence. a couple of pictures from the white house correspondent for reuters and a look at some of the moving pods outside the white house as it undergoes renovations are couple of weeks, and another look inside it what the oval office looks like under renovation. vice president pence will also be traveling on sunday, spending six days in cartagena and bogota, colombia, and panama